Proof That It’s Not a Membership Covenant™ But a Legally Binding Document

"The proper way to welcome him would be to slap handcuffs on him."~ Louis Post linklink

Disclaimer: This post does not purport to give legal advice. Such advice should only be obtained from a certified attorney.

The first part of this post is to demonstrate that I am "just not whistling Dixie." The second part is a case study of an actual, current lawsuit against a church and the church's response. The last section includes recommendations to protect our readers. Unlike certain conciliation™ groups, we are looking out for those of you who are a part of the huge machine which is often disguised as the church.

Peacemakers admits they are using legal methods to prevent the church from getting sued.

Corollary: They are not protecting the individual church members, merely the entity known as the church. They are protecting the organization, not you.

So even if you are part of the church, you are not what is being protected by these covenants. If you, church member, have a horrible experience at the hands of church leaders, you will find an organization which has protected itself against you. You are the bad guy, the one to be afraid of. Make sure you understand that. We have an actual case for you to read later in the post.

Using Christian Conciliation Clauseswas written by The Institute of Christian Conciliation(ICC) which is a division of, and this should not surprise our readers, Peacemaker Ministries which is headed by Attorney Ken Sande. Recommendation: whenever anyone brings up Peacemaker Ministries and Ken Sande, always call him Atty. Sande. It gives perspective. Look what they want churches to put in their membership agreement.

One of the best ways to make sure that a conflict is resolved constructively is to include a conciliation clause in any contract you sign. These clauses are legally enforceable and require that any dispute related to the contract be resolved through biblically-based mediation or arbitration rather than through litigation.Using these clauses may help you to avoid the stress and expense of the secular legal system.

They then put in the expected niceties, obviously overlooking the fact that many church leaders are committed to peace and justice until they are confronted by serious conflict, often brought on by the leadership themselves. Mars Hill, ironically, suggested Peacemaker materials in the past.

Conciliation clauses should be used by those who are truly committed to biblical principles of peace, justice, and reconciliation, and who place a high priority on honoring God and preserving relationships even in the midst of conflict.

Here is a suggested clause written by ICC which should be part of membership contracts.

Any claim or dispute arising from or related to this agreement shall be settled by mediation and, if necessary, legally binding arbitration in accordance with the Rules of Procedure for Christian Conciliation of the Institute for Christian Conciliation, a division of Peacemaker® Ministries (complete text of the Rules is available at www.Peacemaker.net). Judgment upon an arbitration decision may be entered in any court otherwise having jurisdiction. The parties understand that these methods shall be the sole remedy for any controversy or claim arising out of this agreement and expressly waive their right to file a lawsuit in any civil court against one another for such disputes, except to enforce an arbitration decision.

Apparently, the ICC believes these clauses are now in widespread use.

These clauses are being used throughout the country by a wide variety of churches, businesses, ministries, and schools.

Here is ICC's summation:

Conciliation clauses have been used successfully for many years.

Conciliation clauses can save you a great deal of time, money, and energy.

Conciliation clauses are legally enforceable.

Listen to the language ICC uses in this comment. Would you feel comfortable signing this, knowing that they are going to go after you legally if you change your mind?

Both state and federal courts will usually enforce conciliation agreements that require arbitration. If a dispute arises and either party refuses to participate in conciliation efforts, the other party may petition a court for an order to compel the parties to proceed with mediation and arbitration. Similarly, if either party files a lawsuit regarding a contract violation, the other party may ask the court to stop the suit and direct the parties to proceed with conciliation

The enforceability of this clause was recently tested and upheld in Encore Productions, Inc. v. PromiseKeepers, 53 F. Supp. 2nd 1101 (D. Colorado, 1999), where the Court acknowledged that people of faith are free to make contractual agreements to resolve conflicts in a manner consistent with their common faith convictions.

Even more chilling for the average Joe church attendee is this statement found in the above link.

Faith-based preventive law practices are growing more prevalent in the United States and abroad.

Folks you are up against a legal machine designed to protect church organizations from lawsuits. They are not designed to protect you from being hurt by the church. Remember, you are not considered part of the church when you bring action against your church. I am sure that some of you are thinking "This couldn't happen to me. I would never want to sue my church." Are you really sure?

A current case before the Ohio courts

Please read the description of this lawsuit very carefully. In this case, the mediation clause was not explicitly spelled out. The church went to court claiming that this couple implicitly agreed to this arrangement,

The Background

A married mother sought counseling from Pastor Steven Robbins, one of 30 pastors of the large Vineyard Church of Columbus (Ohio.) She had been sexually abused as child by three men who were authority figures. She developed a sexual addiction due to her abuse and wanted help in dealing with it. Robbins allegedly took advantage of his position of trust. From the Columbus Dispatch linked above:

The complaint alleges that Robbins asked the woman to relate her sexual history “to see how the demonic could possibly be in play.” The woman told him she had been sexually abused as a child by three men in positions of authority, the complaint said.

According to the complaint, “Defendant Robbins continued to press Jane Doe for more detail of her sexual history despite knowing that all of the discussion of her sexual history was revving up her addiction.”

The sexual relationship between the pair ended when the woman entered an out-of-state treatment facility for sex addiction.

In 2011, the family proceeded with a lawsuit, naming the pastor, the church and the denomination. They alleged that the pastor was abusive in his actions because he was aware of the woman's past history and used his position as an authority figure to take advantage of her.

The woman's counseling fees, in the aftermath of that betrayal, have been high and the family is suing to recover those expenses. However, it appears that they are only asking for help with medical bills, which is understandable given the extent of the betrayal and her subsequent hospitalization. In other words, they are not asking for the moon.

The family decided to sue in part because their counseling expenses have been high, Hollern said.

The complaint asks for punitive damages in excess of $25,000 and compensatory damages in excess of $25,000. “The evidence will show that future counseling alone will be a very significant figure, much more than that amount,”

The response of the church to the lawsuit

Vineyard Church of Columbus filed a claim that the lawsuit was invalid because the couple implicitly agreed to biblical mediation when they joined the church. According to the Columbus Dispatch

the woman and her husband agreed to handle disputes only via biblically based mediation or binding arbitration when they became members of the church

Now watch how dogged the church becomes in this instance. A lower court ruled in favor of the lawsuit proceeding. Apparently, they did not agree that the family had agreed to biblical mediation upon becoming members since it was not clearly spelled out. So, the church appealed and lost that appeal reported on 6/2014. The church claimed that such mediation was implicit when they joined the church. Again, from the Dispatch:

To join the church, potential members must agree to settle all disputes through Christian mediation, said Vineyard’s senior pastor, the Rev. Rich Nathan.

The county and appellate courts said the evidence did not support the church’s claim that the family had agreed to such a policy.

So is the case going to trial yet? Nope. The church is still not finished. According to the Dispatch:

Nathan said the church is considering its next step and he continues to hope for Christian mediation.

Let's take a look at some of the issues inherent in this case.

The church lost its appeal ONLY because they did not clearly state that mediation was part of their membership agreement. You can be sure that such an oversight has been remedied.

The church clearly believes that their membership requirements bar a member from seeking legal redress against the church. It appears they will go to court again and again to prevent outside legal action.

Note how long this process has been going on for the family. The initial lawsuit was filed in 2011. It is now 2014 and the church is considering further legal options. They are digging in. So, even though the outcome has been in favor of the family, they have been fighting for three years and the case has still not been heard in court. This is an exhausting, financially draining process for the family, even if they eventually win.

Thoughts for everyone to consider upon joining a church

Remember, even the best church leadership can be capable of great sin. If you read this blog, you should know that to be true. Read your Bible for confirmation. So, be prepared for the worst and hope for the best.

Do not be surprised when church leadership acts badly.

Membership forms can be called by any number of names: membership covenants, membership contracts, membership agreements, membership affirmations, etc. They are all legally enforceable.

You are entering into a legal arrangement when you sign a membership contract. Never, ever forget it. This is not some cutesy Hallmark moment of joining hands and singing Kumbaya.

Churches will seek to enforce that contract. Do you have the time and money to stand against them?

You do not have to sign a membership agreement for it to be enforceable. The church can have you stand and affirm it verbally. It can have you sign a paper that you were present at a meeting at which the contract was presented.

Do not sign a membership document unless you are fully prepared to deal with the implications. Also, do not sign a form that states you were present when it was discussed. Better yet, leave the room when the leaders discuss it. Leave the room in which people are standing and verbally agreeing to the contract. Make sure a witness knows you are leaving the room. Remember who that witness was. It could come in handy.

If you have signed such a document, you can send a letter to the church, revoking your membership. That is the only way to get out of the contract. A sample letter is provided in this post. We do not make any claims that this letter is legally approved but we have received a report of one church which received this letter and removed the member's name from the membership roster without incident and discussion. With any questions, contact an attorney.

If your church denies that this is a legally binding contract, don't listen to them. Even if they are stupid enough not to research the legalities of such an agreement, it is still a contract. Believe you me, if something bad happens, they will suddenly discover the joys of signed membership covenants.

Remember, the courts are not inclined to get involved in religious matters. A church can treat members very badly and get away with a lot because of these covenants.

There are more and more people who are getting smart and refusing to sign covenants. We have heard a report about a revolt in one church in which the congregation refused to sign a newly minted covenant. Unfortunately, they fell for standing and repeating the agreement. Little do they know that they are now potentially legally bound to that entity. Folks, be smart and don't be fooled. If you decide to sign/affirm the agreement, do so with eyes wide open.

Maybe it’s just me, but this is a much more real threat than all the hysteria over sharia law.

Never, ever sign an agreement like this. It has absolutely nothing to do with mediation and reconciliation -it’s all about controlling and oppressing members. Next up, a Protestant Inquisition. We need a new Reformation. The fundies are looking a lot like the medieval Roman Catholic Church.

My old Business Law prof back in the Seventies used to say that Tort Law (lawsuits) is the nastiest sort of law practice — “There’s so much easy money in it that it’ll corrupt anybody.” Followed by a list of tricks as to how the attorney can stiff the plaintiff he’s representing for a bigger cut of the take.

Incidentally, Tort Law is now called “Trial Lawyers” or “Consumer Attorneys”.

You are entering into a legal arrangement when you sign a membership contract. Churches will seek to enforce that contract.
The irony of churches using secular law to protect themselves from lawsuits, and then claiming I Cor 6 as a biblical justification, is stunning in its hypocrisy.

And look who is promoting the hypocrisy, attorney Sande. He’s figured out a way to mix his Christianity with making money/business. Be is also teaching this idea across a wide path of American churches. He’s conveniently mixing theology via proof texting of scripture with his degree as a lawyer. It is no different than Driscoll mixing his communications degree with building a(his) church.

This whole idea of faith based law needs nipped in the bud. I have seen what some people do with faith based health issues and it can be lethal, literally. We have the movement for faith based education, that means faith that everything that does not agree with the particular faith system is wrong and cannot be taught or learned. We have even seen faith based weight loss plans even. We have faith (bible) based counseling which we have discussed. Some people are probably so used to that concept that they may think that faith based anything is bound to be better than the alternative.

Now, if some denomination wants to have canon law for its own specific religious purposes, that is one thing. But that is not what these people are doing. Mercy. I am about to have palpitations and the vapors here about this. Sort of.

First of all, thank you for picking up this story. I used to work for the church in question and its actions here, as well as during my employment, are disgusting.

Having sat through the membership class (admittedly at another time than the victim – though it was within the same year and only a couple of months apart), I can verify that her statements are correct. We were never, NEVER explicitly told it was a legally binding contract. It was treated basically as a “this is not extreme, it is just saying you will act as you would be expected to act as a church member/Christian/Jesus loving person.” I would also not be surprised if the senior pastor was not present at her class (she alleges this in the court documents). He did not teach mine, either, but came in for the last twenty minutes or so.

This actually got me fired up enough that I rushed to comment so sorry if you mentioned this, but the church also submitted the victim’s “membership application” to the court as evidence, causing it to become public record, and ensuring that she had no anonymity. They also submitted another “membership class” booklet but IIRC it was from a totally different year, and unfortunately I can’t find my copy from the victim’s year to prove it, but it looks different from what I remember mine looking like.

Maybe it’s just me, but this is a much more real threat than all the hysteria over sharia law.
Never, ever sign an agreement like this. It has absolutely nothing to do with mediation and reconciliation -it’s all about controlling and oppressing members. Next up, a Protestant Inquisition. We need a new Reformation. The fundies are looking a lot like the medieval Roman Catholic Church.

I don’t think this is comparable to Sharia which is an all-encompassing legal system. This week a woman was hanged because she defended herself from a rapist in Iran.

In fundistan I can be humiliated, slandered, and harrassed as a woman. I can’t be executed because I refused to submit to abuse. Likewise for men like Todd and Doug who stand against the machine which, under Sharia, could execute them.

A friend of mine wrote a good article on church membership and contracts. In part he said:

I’m not aware of a single instance in scripture where there is a covenant between individual men, whether monopleuric or dipleuric, that results in these men uniting and functioning as the people of God, worshiping in spirit and in truth. The efforts to justify this practice scripturally are so poor in hermeneutical principal that it baffles the mind. One of the primary justifications for this practice was the appointment of deacons, in Acts, to properly minister to the church’s widows in Jerusalem. The argument is that because they could identify the widows, this implies church membership; therefore membership is biblical and necessarily implies a man-made agreement. Additional arguments of a similar vein will be used (the appointment of elders, the expulsion of the sinner in first Corinthians, etc.). Each of these arguments requires a quantum leap in hermeneutics and exegesis that borders on the ridiculous. All other attempts that I’ve seen as justifying this practice scripturally are equally unsupportable by any acceptable hermeneutical method. I firmly believe that this is a fleshly attempt at making “covenant members” fulfill their biblical responsibilities towards one another and towards the lost world in which they live by working towards the pastor’s vision. It is akin to the Judaizers in Galatians requiring circumcision, with even less justification, because there was at least a way to use the Old Testament scriptures to attempt to justify that practice. No such scriptures exist that can be misapplied to justify this practice. The true children of Abraham, the true circumcision, the true Israel, the true children of God will worship in spirit and truth through the empowerment of the Holy Spirit, by God’s sovereign design out of a changed and thankful heart. God has prepared their good works in advance:

I’m guessing insurers are balking at writing policies for churches who do not include explicit language limiting litigation. I’m guessing that the evident hypocrisy is the reason for the fake firewall between the Peacemakers spiritual entity and the legal advisory business entity. I’m guessing both entities are mutually reinforcing and primarily benefit Ken Sande.

In fundistan I can be humiliated, slandered, and harrassed as a woman. I can’t be executed because I refused to submit to abuse. Likewise for men like Todd and Doug who stand against the machine which, under Sharia, could execute them.

That’s what Christian Reconstructionism (TAKE BACK AMERICA!) intends to fix. After Quiverfull has outbred those Heathen. (And once there are no more Heathen, there are always Heretics and Apostates.)

Once we’re a True Christian Nation(TM), you CAN be executed because you refuse to submit to God’s Anointed. Just like Calvin’s Geneva. “GOD HATH SAID! SCRIPTURE!! SCRIPTURE!!! SCRIPTURE!!!!”

And look who is promoting the hypocrisy, attorney Sande. He’s figured out a way to mix his Christianity with making money/business. Be is also teaching this idea across a wide path of American churches. He’s conveniently mixing theology via proof texting of scripture with his degree as a lawyer. It is no different than Driscoll mixing his communications degree with building a(his) church.

Didn’t a certain Rabbi from Nazareth have something to say about “Scribes and LAWYERS and Pharisees”?

The easiest way for a church to avoid lawsuits is – don’t own anything. Be a storefront church; lease the building, lease the equipment and you’ll never be sued.
*
But it appears to be in our nature to want to build and own. If you do build and own, you become much more vulnerable to a lawsuit.
*
I’d say, Peacemakers and Ken Sande aren’t the problem.

Bridget wrote:
And look who is promoting the hypocrisy, attorney Sande. He’s figured out a way to mix his Christianity with making money/business. Be is also teaching this idea across a wide path of American churches. He’s conveniently mixing theology via proof texting of scripture with his degree as a lawyer. It is no different than Driscoll mixing his communications degree with building a(his) church.
Didn’t a certain Rabbi from Nazareth have something to say about “Scribes and LAWYERS and Pharisees”?

Yes, but said Nazarene was not Nazarene Rabbi, J.D. or Nazarene Rabbi, Ph.D. or Nazarene Rabbi, Th.D. or Nazarene Rabbi, M.D. so clearly he could not possibly inform the thinking of all of these Really Smart and Bibley Manly Men.

I was only referring to the hysteria here in the US where conservative fearmongers are claiming Muslims in the US are trying to usurp US law by trying to make Sharia the law of the land. That is a straw man, this membership contract exists and is a real threat in the US.

To make matters more complicated, Peacemaker markets to church leadership who pay the generous fee that they charge for their services. Therefore, the money comes from the church leadership. That raises red flags for me.

What in the Sam Hill is a Certified Emotional Intelligence Instructor???

I don’t know if ‘certified’ here has the same range of meanings in the States as in the UK, but one of them on this side of the Pond colloqually means he has lost his marbles, is a sandwich short of a picnic etc.

My friend google tell me “Emotional intelligence can be defined as the ability to monitor one’s own and other people’s emotions, to discriminate between different emotions and label them appropriately and to use emotional information to guide thinking and behavior.” (wikipedia)

Am I exercising the gift of suspicion in thinking the last phrase ‘guide thinking and behaviour’ is likely a euphemism for learning how to manipulate people?

If you do build and own, you become much more vulnerable to a lawsuit.

Once more from that missiology book I keep talking about—the author said that one reason for the success of the underground church movement in China is that they have no buildings and just meet is small groups in constantly changing places. This makes it harder to catch them, he says, but also the government cannot send in the bulldozers and destroy their church since they have no church. Of course, they get thrown into prison but that is a different issue.

senecagriggs yahoo wrote:
If you do build and own, you become much more vulnerable to a lawsuit.
Once more from that missiology book I keep talking about—the author said that one reason for the success of the underground church movement in China is that they have no buildings and just meet is small groups in constantly changing places. This makes it harder to catch them, he says, but also the government cannot send in the bulldozers and destroy their church since they have no church. Of course, they get thrown into prison but that is a different issue.

If reports are true, the underground church in China has indeed thrived without buildings.

Unbelievable! These men want to behave any way they want without consequence. As a former full time pastor, I am appalled. These men DO NOT represent the true church. Any resemblance to orthodox Christianity is purely coincidental. Meanwhile the victims continue to suffer.

@ Gram3:
To make meters more complicated, Peacemaker markets to church leadership who pay the generous fee that they charge for their services. Therefore, the money comes from the church leadership. That raises red flags for me.

Hang on a sec…looking for my shocked, shocked face…So, marketing conciliation services to churches that push nouthetic counseling which should mean they already know how to do that. Uh huh. Praise the Lord and pass the check.

conservative fearmongers are claiming Muslims in the US are trying to usurp US law by trying to make Sharia the law of the land.

I believe that trial balloons have been floated where sharia courts would offer alternative dispute resolution, especially involving domestic matters. IIRC, it was in the MN Star-Trib a couple of years ago.

While I oppose broad-brushing Muslims, mainly because I have reasonable Muslim friends, I think we need to be aware of the lunatic fringe wherever it may lurk and the devices they may use for their ends.

Emotional intelligence is the ability to read people, to oversimplify. I know something about certifications. For example, I certify that I have a certified Barbie Bod and a certified Marie Curie intellect. Copies custom printed for you upon request. For a reasonable fee.

OK, sorry for the glitchy comment. I am breaking in yet another new computer after dropping (I swear I did *not* throw it) my previously new and demon-possessed Windows 8.666 laptop. This keyboard is better, but we are still in the getting-acquainted phase of our relationship. Apologies.

Unbelievable! These men want to behave any way they want without consequence. As a former full time pastor, I am appalled. These men DO NOT represent the true church. Any resemblance to orthodox Christianity is purely coincidental. Meanwhile the victims continue to suffer.

I’m thinking, Randall, as much as anything they are hoping to save the facility/land from lawsuits as much as they might be trying to keep their positions. I would hate it if my church ( the people who pay the bills ) was sued.

Wait a minute–regarding the case in Columbus, this pastor/counselor had a sexual relationship w/ a woman he was counseling for sexual addiction? Am I reading this correctly? What does Ohio state law say about this type of relationship? IIRC, Lourdes Torres was able to bring her suit in Texas on the basis of a Texas law that made sexual relationships between pastors non-consensual by definition. In other words, “ISN’T THIS A CRIME???” If so, arbitration shouldn’t apply, period. Right?

Sure, if I can remember/piece together anything I can try to. I will have to see if I can find the booklet from the class or recording of the message – unfortunately, I don’t remember much (and likely didn’t pay much attention 😉 – it was a hoop to jump through to be involved in the church, and having grown up in church I didn’t really give it much thought at the time).

I would hate it if my church ( the people who pay the bills ) was sued.

Sometimes religious bodies need to be sued. Seriously. Just because it’s a church doesn’t mean it’s exempt from overlooking crimes committed on its premises, for example. *cough* child sexual abuse *cough*

If reports are true, the underground church in China has indeed thrived without buildings.

If the remaining Mars Hill pastors are to help the remaining members thrive, they may need to do so without the buildings– or salaries– they’ve been accustomed to. I mention this having seen, and agreed with, your recent comment on the Throckmorton blog. ‘All I can say is “Wow”‘. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton/2014/10/28/mars-hill-shoreline-pastor-asks-forgiveness-calls-out-leadership/#comment-1660335865
My apologies if there’s another Seneca commenting! 🙂 For anyone not following this, quite a remarkable thing is happening. Not one, but two current MH pastors are interacting there with former and soon-to-be former members. One of them seems a bit further along the path of enlightenment, having written the best apology yet to come out of the whole mess. Too bad they all didn’t hold Mr Driscoll to the terms of his membership covenant a few years ago (to bring this back on-topic) but we can’t have it all!

When I was in the environmental business, we created and offered to environmental managers and safety engineers a certification: Certified Designee for Incarceration. Those who asked them to be certified by someone for their job were offered that for a 25% increase in pay, guaranteed to continue throughout the time they would spend in jail/prison for taking the hit for the company that almost always stymied any attempt at compliance and improvement in safety or environmental control.

I am breaking in yet another new computer after dropping (I swear I did *not* throw it) my previously new and demon-possessed Windows 8.666 laptop.

Go Mac, you’ll never look back. Rock-solid UNIX based, far simpler interface, and virtually no cussing (if one is as inclined as I am). Let Microsoft die the death it deserves on the trash heap of computer history.

No can do. If I repent of Microsin, I would be acknowledging the superior judgment of my kids who have forgotten that advice flows downstream only. Prior to his generosity in fighting Ebola, I was quite convinced that Bill Gates is the AntiChrist, because who else would take away the delightfully simple and clean, indeed almost IKEAesque, command prompt and replace it with his version of the aptly named GUI?

And, there is no way this Daughter of Eve is going to be deceived again by a Shining One dangling an iApple and promising the all the knowledge of Siri. Fool me once, etc. I am quite sure that once I find the 8″ floppy drive and the Selectric port I could not find on the other one then all will be well.

“Only Mahaney has the gall to privately reject Sande’s “correction, counsel and care” but publicly put himself forward as receiving it. He goes on to boast, “That, I am grateful to say, will continue.” It didn’t continue. It ended the following week when SGM signed their “Agreement for Consultation” contract with Ambassadors of Reconciliation and not long thereafter so did his friendship with Sande. The same thing later happened with Powlison.”

Doug wrote:
What in the Sam Hill is a Certified Emotional Intelligence Instructor
Emotional intelligence is the ability to read people, to oversimplify. I know something about certifications. For example, I certify that I have a certified Barbie Bod and a certified Marie Curie intellect. Copies custom printed for you upon request. For a reasonable fee.

Friends of mine who stayed a bit longer in the house-church I had already left were asked to sign a form of commitment to the church. They were quite happy to support the church and its leaders with time and money etc. That wasn’t the issue, not the contents of the form but the need to sign it.

They refused to sign simply because there is no biblical requirement to do so, and they simply didn’t want to. The leader’s response was to try to persuade them, as this was no big deal, it was not important, nothing to worry about.

Needless to say, they couldn’t really remain there and in the end parted company.

My point is this shows the odd thinking of some leaders. A couple who were happy to belong i.e. were committed ended up being attendees rather than members because the leaders wouldn’t accept them without signing something they themselves said wasn’t important! If you won’t let people in without signing, then it is important.

The leadership of a church should never ask of members something the bible doesn’t, and I reckon many who did sign up would be less committed than the friends I had.

I didn’t think we were supposed to go to law over disputes in the church, and that before unbelievers; why the sudden need to put things in writing in case this should ever become necessary?

even when it comes to the inheritance law for women I think it’s something to be very concerned and vigilent about.the camel’s nose got under the tent in England in certain areas. tolerance can take us to some very intolerant places.I am a libertarian so I don’t think like most liberals who tend to have such a knee-jerk reaction to anything conservatives say they might just end up helping to oppress women in the name of being tolerant of Islam to show they are not hysterical conservatives. the irony never ceases to amaze me.

sometimes it helps to start with how women benefit from Islam. or why Islam is a good thing for women.

With the current jurisprudence system here in American, ultimately it will NOT be the BAD PASTOR who makes financial payment for his misdeeds, it will be the church, AKA “deep pockets” who include people such as the widow Mrs. Smith now 85 who has been tithing for the last 40 years. Her tithe money will have to cover the cost of a successful lawsuit.

@ Deb, thanks for your link to the earlier post on Sande. They did give me his Peacemaker’s book which I did read. I think he had some valuable insight and suggestions for reconciling relationships within the body of Christ, but what inevitably happens is they subtly hold your feet to the fire of Sande, which, imo, he goes beyond what Scripture says in many places. Just another element of legalism and control.

[My friends] were quite happy to support the church and its leaders with time and money etc. That wasn’t the issue, not the contents of the form but the need to sign it. They refused to sign simply because there is no biblical requirement to do so, and they simply didn’t want to. The leader’s response was to try to persuade them, as this was no big deal, it was not important, nothing to worry about.
Needless to say, they couldn’t really remain there and in the end parted company.

At one level I’m glad your friends stood their ground, because what they were contending for was an authentic manifestation of the Church. What the leaders were – to all intents and purposes – pushing for was a man-made organisation held together by visible signed agreements because the in-visible Covenant in Jesus’ blood was not quite good enough for them.

I’ve often said the following (I don’t want to call it “Bulbeck’s Law” because someone else will have thought of it too, but I didn’t steal it from anyone):

In any organisation, the sum of RULES and RELATIONSHIPS remains constant over time.

So, if you work really hard to strengthen relationships in a congregation, the rules generally fade to a minimum because you know you can trust one another. When someone breaks a rule, it’s not a big deal because it is assumed they were acting for the best, and that they have not suddenly gone rogue. It takes real patience and maturity from leadership to do this, of course; it can’t be done just by throwing a few home-groups together or slapping the label “fellowship” cheaply onto any old get-together.

The converse is true as well, of course, as your friends experienced. When the leadership acts to beef up the rules, it inevitably weakens the relationships. We don’t really trust Jesus, and we don’t really trust you either; it’s no big deal, don’t fuss about it, but we just want to replace the bedrock this congregation is founded on.

Indeed so, I think. I read an article within the past year about Sharia friendly banking practices being set up in some (how many?) banks to adjust banking procedures to Sharia for the muslims who wanted that.

On the one hand hysteria is not indicated. But, it is the danger that is not seen and the symptom that is overlooked and the opportunity that is not recognized that can suddenly be somebody’s worst nightmare. Sharia is not our system, and what to do about people who want to be judged and/or married and/or conduct business according to Sharia is something we will have to think about long and hard.

BTW, I found in some medical records once (when working for the VA) a signed marriage contract for a muslim marriage committed to Sharia. Interesting reading.

There follows an alternative viewpoint to keep the conversation going.

The ideas about how things ought to be at church sound good, but I have never seen it work in practice, at church or elsewhere. My father used to tell us repeatedly that the people most apt to do you in were your own family. He was basing this on his own legal practice and what he saw of humanity through it. Dad used to quote that statement about Jesus as to how he would not entrust himself to “them” because he knew what was in man.

I kind of think along the lines of believe but validate, especially with those who have the power to hurt you-family, business associates, and yes fellow religionists. I lean toward legal documents with family (wills for example) and contracts with business associates. And I think that at church it is best to keep a lot of your business to yourself and not give people the ability (temptation) to stab you in the back because you have told them too much about yourself. It is necessary to be wise, not just harmless.

And no I cannot explain the thing about Judas, but the theories are interesting. How come wise and cautious Jesus got betrayed like that? I don’t know. But betrayal is a real possibility in all areas of life, and it keeps the lawyers in business. And yes, even so, I have been betrayed a couple of times when I got careless.

the widow Mrs. Smith now 85 who has been tithing for the last 40 years. Her tithe money will have to cover the cost of a successful lawsuit.

Her tithe goes to cover the despicable acts of her pastors and leaders. When you join a church, you join it fully and share in the joys and the hardships. Also, if we let people know that their tithes could be used in this situation, perhaps the congregation will wake up and smell the coffee and keep an eye on church leadership which often has little accountability.

In this situation, I would be happy to have my tithes go to support a woman abused by pastor as opposed to having my tithes support a pastor who is probably living well above the median of the congregation anyway.

I believe that trial balloons have been floated where sharia courts would offer alternative dispute resolution, especially involving domestic matters. IIRC, it was in the MN Star-Trib a couple of years ago.

I just find it ironic that there has been hardly any discussion of Sharia as a legally sanctioned alternative dispute resolution method and no implementation of it anywhere in the US, yet 8 or so states have passed laws against it, but these same conservatives don’t say a word when these so-called ‘Christian’ arbitration clause are already being widely imposed in this country.

For the record, I am no defender of Sharia law. It’s use by extremists is appalling, particularly regarding females. Its what happens when any religious code of conduct, Jewish, Christian, and Muslim, is taken over by its lunatic fringe. Yet so many are blind to this when it’s done under the guise of ‘Christianity’.

The church is about preaching the gospel and empowering people to be liberated from the damaging control of sin.

I think the worst kinds of people are those that seize ownership of the gospel and twist it into policies and procedures that enslave others to them.

Is it any wonder that people turn their backs on religion, after experiencing what amounts to man-made traps?

It makes me fighting mad to see this happen. And what’s worse is the perpetrators are often so smug and indifferent, assuming they’re so godly, plugging their ears, acting as though they’re being persecuted by those critical of them and their flim-flam stage shows. .

Thank heavens for the efforts of good people willing to stand up to these nasty people and their phoney piety. And thank God for how TWW works to equip and empower people to identify, resist and expose spiritual abuse!

I think the church is afflicted with its own case of Ebola, spread by individuals who wish to infect others with the deadly virus they’re carrying, who take no responsibility themselves for the danger they pose, accuse those who seek to quarantine them of injustice, and who believe instead the unafflicted should be confined.

Oh, and Robert Morris? Jesus was crucified to set us free from con men like yourself and Mark Disco. The Bible gives us the right to expose and judge evil doers. And to mess up your pretty hair.

couple who were happy to belong i.e. were committed ended up being attendees rather than members because the leaders wouldn’t accept them without signing something they themselves said wasn’t important! If you won’t let people in without signing, then it is important.

the widow Mrs. Smith now 85 who has been tithing for the last 40 years. Her tithe money will have to cover the cost of a successful lawsuit.

Her tithe goes to cover the despicable acts of her pastors and leaders. When you join a church, you join it fully and share in the joys and the hardships. Also, if we let people know that their tithes could be used in this situation, perhaps the congregation will wake up and smell the coffee and keep an eye on church leadership which often has little accountability.

In this situation, I would be happy to have my tithes go to support a woman abused by pastor as opposed to having my tithes support a pastor who is probably living well above the median of the congregation anyway.

Contracts are enforced even if the church violated their part of the bargain. The aggrieved party must go through mediation if it is stated in the covenant/contract. This happened to a relative who left her medical practice and started a new one.

She was sued for breach of contract. The former practice actually violated the original contract which caused her to leave. She then started another practice in the same city on the grounds that the former company violated the contract during her employment.

Even so, she was required to go through binding arbitration as spelled out in the original contract. Her outcome was good. The mediators were a class act and well known in a large city and they saw through the nonsense quite quickly and ruled in favor of her actions plus gave her a little extra for her trouble.

But, just because one person breaks part of a contract, does not mean that the entire contracts is null and void, especially when it comes to solving a dispute.

In other words, the church can do all sorts of things and still be allowed to enforce a mediation clause. In the Vineyard situation, the church did not spell out mediation which is the reason that the couple proceeded with the lawsuit. The church is arguing that it is implicitly understood and the court is not buying it.

Also, understand that this is a civil action to recoup damages. It is not a judgement of criminal activity. Was the pastor criminally negligent? That is up to the prosecutor. That would be a separate trial in criminal court, not civil court and depends on laws in Ohio.

For example, in the current SGM lawsuit, it is hopefully going to be argued in a civil court, not a criminal court. However, the Nate Morales trial was held in criminal court. Note that no damages were awarded to his victims. Those victims are arguing for redress in civil court. And yes, I am optimistic that things are not over for SGM.

I hope I am saying this properly. Any lawyers please feel free to jump in and correct me.

You are discussing a theoretical Mrs. Smith. You have compassion for someone that may not even exist. However, in this situation, a woman was coerced by her pastor couselor which resulted in a prolonged hospitalization. I am discussing an actual event and you are discussing a theoretical situation.

But theoretical appears easier for you to deal with than actual pain. Once again, you show no compassion for the injured and purport to care for an imaginary Mrs. Smith. How deep is that!

Wait a minute–regarding the case in Columbus, this pastor/counselor had a sexual relationship w/ a woman he was counseling for sexual addiction? Am I reading this correctly? What does Ohio state law say about this type of relationship? IIRC, Lourdes Torres was able to bring her suit in Texas on the basis of a Texas law that made sexual relationships between pastors non-consensual by definition. In other words, “ISN’T THIS A CRIME???” If so, arbitration shouldn’t apply, period. Right?

Thanks for calling out Seneca on this. He’s presented with a woman whose life and well-being have been shattered by a fool calling himself a pastor. A woman who is actually suffering. And Jimmy chooses to focus on people who might be suffering. Not sure I see the sense in that.

It also has to pay for a fancy building, sound systems, lights, salaries of all the staff, etc. The money she gives already goes everywhere with very little to the sincerely needy, orphans, and widows. I would personally leave the organized church and give to the areas scripture calls us to give to.

Huh. So, I am no legal-eagle, but I wonder if the IRS can sue these false church leaders (aka, “the Firm”) that teach TITHING (since Jesus HIMSELF ended tithing). This being since it is not part of new covenant relationship with our Lord Jesus Christ. This would be EASY to prove since the church doctrine documentation is there, and the money trail (church doctrine in writing, tithe envelopes, letters going out thanking people for their tithes, etc.)… Bring these false leaders to justice and send a clear message to the Body of Christ that this will not be tolerated! Send these false leaders to jail, require restitution, etc. And, make en example of their wicked deeds/works for the edification of all…

BTW, I don’t like church covenant memberships but I know why we have them. At anytime, day or night, 24/7, there are big/huge law firms advertising their services hoping you’ll let them sue someone; any one actually. They don’t care.
*
Sadly, it is the world we live in.
*
I’m with Dee on this one; I don’t think I’d sign one. NOT because I wanted to retain a legal right to sue; but because I hate contracts in general ( though I have to sign my life away every year to the Gov. It’s so big, I actually have no idea what I’m signing. sigh )
*
Welcome to the litigious United States of America

It also has to pay for a fancy building, sound systems, lights, salaries of all the staff, etc. The money she gives already goes everywhere with very little to the sincerely needy, orphans, and widows. I would personally leave the organized church and give to the areas scripture calls us to give to.

I’m okay with that Bridget. But you’d be surprised how many church members like nice seats and are glad to direct their giving in that direction.

First I am crushed for the woman who was abused. She was courageous to seek help and then to be abused by the very person/pastor that she sought help from – heart breaking. Of course I don’t know all of the details in this story but I wonder – did anyone from the church reach out to this woman and her family? The article in the Columbus Dispatch states that the pastor was fired and that the congregation was notified. I am guessing that no one in the church did – what if the church had reached out and offered to pay for at least some of the expense of the counseling? Perhaps that is naive on my part but I would love to know if anyone on staff or in the congregation did anything – showed any compassion?

I am curious about Casey’s post – “covenants are contingent on BOTH parties doing their part”. That sounds reasonable but in most covenants does the church actually state in writing what their part of the covenant is?
Dee and Deb-
Thank you for your thoughts on what to consider before joining a church. Could you please elaborate – maybe this is too broad of a question and would be different for everyone but what do you think is reasonable for a someone to agree to when joining a church? Is there any place for a written or verbal agreement ? if so what should/should not be included? I would appreciate your thoughts – as I am searching for the paper copy of what I actually did sign when I became a member of my church. I did read thru it carefully and asked a number of questions and even took some time to think about it before signing but in the end I did sign. Thanks!

CALVIN: “Of course we could turn Susie into a bowl of chowder if we could just get her in the machine…”
SUSIE: “Leave me out of your life’s plans, you little creep.”

Mine would have only two settings on the dial: Sheep & Wallet
I would put mega-church pastors in it, after tazing them, of course. 🙂
The people who they abused would get to select the setting, under my certified supervision.
“I know it is not possible. Does it not delight your imagination?”

Too bad they all didn’t hold Mr Driscoll to the terms of his membership covenant a few years ago (to bring this back on-topic) but we can’t have it all!

It should be clear to everyone by now given the evidence of Dirscoll, Ceej, Doug Phillips, and the gross misdeeds of other leaders that these membership covenants do NOT apply to the powers that be in these ‘churches’ – their only reason for existence is as an instrument of oppression to be used against the rest of the congregation to do the despots’ bidding and fork over their money. It’s a farce.

It should be clear to everyone by now given the evidence of Dirscoll, Ceej, Doug Phillips, and the gross misdeeds of other leaders that these membership covenants do NOT apply to the powers that be in these ‘churches’ – their only reason for existence is as an instrument of oppression to be used against the rest of the congregation to do the despots’ bidding and fork over their money. It’s a farce.

No, it’s Animal Farm where “All Animals are Equal BUT SOME ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS.”

In French, they were Les Aristos;
In Game of Thrones, they’re The Highborn.

Does anyone remember what species Orwell used for Animal Farm’s equivalent?

Young son tried this case today in federal court-MC Middle District-and this man has been convicted. I don’t know how they got guilty pleas out of him, but all together this was a case where our anti-terorism people stayed on this guy’s case until the got him. Yeah for the home team.

“Dale Pyne serves as the CEO of Peacemaker Ministries. He has an extensive background in business and organizational leadership and has been an active mentor/coach for pastors and lay leaders. Dale is a Certified Christian Conciliator™ with the Institute for Christian Conciliation (a division of Peacemaker Ministries), a Certified Professional Mediator with the IMA, and has advised, mediated and arbitrated for families, churches, businesses and government entities. He is currently working on a Master’s of Divinity. Dale’s passion is to further develop the extraordinary resources and services that God has delivered through the entire Peacemaker Ministries movement. His vision is to unite Peacemaker Ministries’ global network of friends through intentional and collaborative relationships. Dale and his wife, Terri, are excited to be a part of PM’s vision of transforming relationships with the power of the gospel, in the spirit of 1 Corinthians 10:31. They are richly blessed by their boys, Joshua and Shane, who are both married.”

It appears to me that those who push “Biblical” anything (mediation, counselling, etc.) are referring to a very specific view of what “Biblical” means – theirs, which is certainly not mine. They proof-text everything and always seems to be hierarchical (submitting to authority – theirs). These guidelines mentioned in the article are ultimately from Peacemakers – and as a middle aged male I am so offended by their views towards women that would NEVER agree to letting them mediate anything, as I absolutely cannot trust their judgement.

This is actually from the Peacemaker site

…..”God has established a procedure whereby a wife may confront a Christian husband who is behaving sinfully. Such confrontation begins at a personal level, and may ultimately involve the authorities of the church if the husband does not repent. If this procedure were used more often, many husbands would choose to change their behavior. If a husband refuses to heed the discipline of the church, and if his conduct violates civil laws (e.g., wife or child abuse), a wife may legitimately turn to the civil authorities and ask them to intervene. As Romans 13 indicates, civil authorities are instituted by God to punish those who do wrong, and a wife may certainly turn to them in appropriate cases….”

READ THAT LAST PART AGAIN – even in cases of child or spousal abuse a wife must FIRST confront her husband, SECOND involve church leadership and only after that fails can she go to the civil authorities. Are you kidding me???????? That is warped. These “christians” are actually saying that it would be ILLEGITIMATE for a wife to call the authorities if she or her children were being physically or sexual abused by her husband.

WARNING UPCOMING SARCASM (just to be crystal clear)

But then again, you ladies shouldn’t worry your pretty little heads and just submit to your husbands, because:

….”many Christian women are ignorant as to how to work through personal conflict and persevere in relationships. They do not know how to make an adequate confession, grant true forgiveness, or even negotiate in a biblicaly faithful manner. For wives and mothers, these weaknesses have a particularly negative effects

Instead of faithfully “blessing and never cursing” (see Rom. 12) or “doing good even when treated unjustly” (see 1 Pet. 2), Christian women often attack through vicious words (such as gossip couched as “prayer requests” or “sharing”) and spiteful actions (such as emotion-laden emails, and letters carelessly written to confront and rebuke).

Failing to heed the biblical admonition that “If anyone says, ‘I love God,’ yet hates his brother, he is a liar.” (1 John 4:19), women often struggle with bitterness and hatred towards the people in their lives who have rejected, abandoned, or attacked them.

Not reflecting the truth that “love always perseveres” (1 Cor. 13:7), women easily give up on people when wrongs occur and relationships become rocky. Instead of showing grace through loving confrontation and forgiveness, women regularly “move on” to new relationships.

Women are quick to be catty, petty, and competitive. Instead of accepting one another “just as Christ accepted them” (see Rom. 15:7), women are often trapped in adolescent games of competition and gossip…….”

I am dumbstruck – maybe because I am from California, I find this truly pathetic and if this is what is considered “biblical” and desired by God – then they must be following a different God. I cannot see how anybody (other than those in power) would agree to this.
This vile and disgusting

Not only is this true, it is what some men (and women!)I know believe from their core, and they will *not* hear anything which contradicts it. They are thoroughly immersed in this doctrine, and it is their lens for understanding male and female relationships. Thank you CBMW. It escapes me how this thinking can possibly bring Peace to any relationship.

When we started this blog, we were shocked at how people like John Piper and Paige Patterson view domestic violence. Read this post in which Patterson tells a woman to return to her abusive husband and rejoices when she gets beat up again because her husband decided to come to church. This is absolutely true.

Piper believes women should endue abuse for a season. He does not permit a woman who was abused to divorce and remarry since the moment she signed the licensee, she is bound to him for life. He also believe women would endue abuse for a season.

The evangelical church has allowed despicable doctrine to infect their ranks. They protect abusive ministries when the ministry preaches their secondary doctrine. Theology matters far more than abuse and safety. They claim it dose not but their actions, year after year after year prove otherwise.

We have some seriously sick theologians who have achieved a level of respect that they do not deserve until they care about the least of these. Really care not mouthing it.

@ rasinwhiting:
They have not changed their modus operandi. Sande stepped down to start a new group but the organization has not changed. Look at the group that I quoted at the beginning of this post and read the following statement.

Not only is this true, it is what some men (and women!)I know believe from their core, and they will *not* hear anything which contradicts it. They are thoroughly immersed in this doctrine, and it is their lens for understanding male and female relationships. Thank you CBMW. It escapes me how this thinking can possibly bring Peace to any relationship.

Far from bringing peace to any relationship it actually infantilizes men. They end up being giant toddlers, emotionally.

These guidelines mentioned in the article are ultimately from Peacemakers – and as a middle aged male I am so offended by their views towards women that would NEVER agree to letting them mediate anything, as I absolutely cannot trust their judgement.

As in “WOMAN, SUBMIT!”?
He holds the Whip and she feels the Whip?

And when you’re the one Holding the Whip, There’s NEVER anything Wrong with the System — It’s Working Just Fine!

And if it’s a closed system, those already Holding the Whip are the only ones with the power to change the system, so…

thanks for posting that. I have pointed this out to certain groups that use or promote Peacemakers and you know what they usually say? They will say something like ‘oh we don’t really agree with all of that but they do good work’.

Sheesh!

The cognitive dissonance that lives in so many segments of Christianity blows my mind.

Far from bringing peace to any relationship it actually infantilizes men. They end up being giant toddlers, emotionally.

Look at the stories of male behavior that come out of the Uber-Patriarchal societies of Saudi or Talibanistan.

and here I was thinking of Driscoll and Mahaney and some of the bizarre things they have taught about women. but I am quite familiar with Islam and its view of women. even cultural Islam has its problems where women are concerned. it is a total phallocentristic culture. Christian patriarchy circles are jealous! all they can do is try to shame women into not calling the civil authorities.

I do not think it is necessary. The early church had no mention of such an agreement and they muddled along just fine.

Your agreement to being a member of church is born out in taking your baptism seriously. What must you swear to? The Bible is loaded with commandments. Why pick and choose a few affirmations and who decides which ones to choose and which ones to ignore?

Frankly, any one who takes Scripture seriously should do what any good covenant would include which is to, in essence, care for the church, care of the poor, pursue our faith and witness to our faith.

Once again, these covenants took hold in the 90s in order to protect the church against lawsuits. And that is why they are being used today.

I have no intention of signing one ever again even if it means I will not be accepted as a member of a church. However, never fear. They will take my money, member or no.

Despicable!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I believe that I can proof text the Bible to pretty much justify any behavior as “Biblical”. The sad part is many of the secondary issues can be based on as little as a partial verse.

I actually know somebody that was abused again and again and the church “made” her stay. I was shocked and thought it was more a cult-like situation, I am further shocked that it is much wider and mainstream.

I don’t like to disparage other’s views but Piper’s view of God, (which is similar to how I was brought up), is one that I realized I could fear but never love – which brings guilt as in “what’s wrong with me?” Fortunately, after a long time away I realized…..nothing, what was wrong was that warped view of God. There is nothing attractive about that view and I take Jesus’ word that we can only see what the Father is truly like through him so my view of God is very different from his

The secondary doctrine issue is a problem I see with “conservative” mindset in general – because it really is relegating “secondary” as essential.

Not to get into politics but just an example…Ted Nugent hit his peak of popularity when I was in HS/college – even then I found him to be extremely offensive due to his objectivizing women in the most degrading manner – he is a pig. 30 years later the political right (and many Christians) embrace him because he is gun nut and hates Obama. My folks had the Mike Huckabee show on where Nugent was a guest and Huckabee played bass with him on “Cat Scratch Fever” Really?????

Personally I would not want a submissive wife but rather am lucky to have one that I consider an equal that will challenge and help me to continue to grow.

@ Lydia:
Based on what I posted I would not trust them to give me directions if I was lost – cannot trust their judgement at all.

They do good work if you are the one in authority (by their own interpretation of scripture) because the bible said we should all be submissive to somebody, right?

The people that I have known who have used the church to settle disputes were not happy with the outcome. One was somebody I knew who had an employee steal a significant amount of money – church leadership determined that the thief was repentant and should be forgiven – which is fine – but the kicker was they also told him that it was his spiritual duty to also forgive the debt incurred and if he didn’t he would no longer be welcome

Let me explain something. The phrase “take your baptism seriously” is used by a pastor who has meant a lot to me. What he means is this. When we come to our faith, we leave the old man behind and enter a new life in Christ.

All of us who give a hoot about this change will try to follow in the footsteps of Jesus. Jesus has given us much to do.

To sum it up in a few phrases like “I will pray for my church” appears trivial. I will not only pray for my local church but of the worldwide church, for the dear people who write comments at this blog and for the very nice men who have been roofing my house this week.

Once again, I believe that these agreements are more to protect some men who are prone to do some heinous things in the name of the church.

Far from bringing peace to any relationship it actually infantilizes men. They end up being giant toddlers, emotionally.

Yes it does, and it infantilizes women as well. There is an unavoidable implication that *but for* their position of authority in the hierarchy, men would not love their wives as Christ loved the church. There is the unavoidable implication that *but for* the existence of a “head” a woman cannot be or do…something. They never quite say how that works or why a married woman requires a “head” but a single adult woman does not (unless her pastor is her “head.”)

There is the unavoidable implication that *but for* a static hierarchical structure with the man in the dominant position, marriages and churches would descend into deceived chaos. Because nothing says chaos and ungodliness like a man and a woman (or men and women in the church) walking together side by side in the power of the indwelling Spirit and demonstrating mutual love and respect, considering the others more important than themselves. I cannot imagine how that scenario would displease our Father or obscures the gospel message, as the CBMW cultists claim.

This whole disgusting and fleshly human system is another way of saying that the atonement of Jesus Christ is insufficient to overcome sin and the Holy Spirit is incompetent to work in the lives and attitudes of men and women who are In Christ to transform them into his image, from which image we fell in the first place.

It is also convenient to the purveyors of this system that everyone is infantilized with respect to studying the Bible on their own without swallowing their doctrine without question.

Do not attempt to adjust your sets. They will control the vertical (interposing themselves as mediators between us and God); they will control the horizontal (interfering in the most intimate relationship and imposing their laws.) The CBMW cult and all of their fellow travelers want to rule over the men and women over whom Christ alone is the King. They want to be kings. At MH, they even called themselves Kings!

I’m sure it has struck you, as it has me, that “God has also established a procedure” whereby his own people can be brought to heel when they too far gone in sin to listen to him. These people seem to have overlooked the fact that God can, and does, use civil authorities to punish systemic and rampant wrongdoing by organisations that think they are the church. In the Old Testament it was Cyrus, any number of foreign nations during the time of the judges, Babylon, Assyria, you name it, but those who believe they own God’s Law are not beyond its reach.

Deb wrote:
I also have Ken Sande’s Peacemaking book,
You broke a TWW Secondary Doctrine. You must refer to him as ATTY Ken Sande.

I have been a mediator for more than 40 years and an attorney for 15. I have been an arbitrator for 12. What Sande pushes is not mediation, which can be a process for resolving problems in a relationship with the intention of restoring it, on equal ground. No one has to agree, and if we do not all agree, no one is bound by the mediation.

What Sande pushes is a form of arbitration, binding arbitration, where one’s right to disagree is limited and the result can be imposed even without agreement. It is substituting an arbitrator for a courtroom with judge or jury making the decision. A judge is paid by the state to be neutral; an arbitrator paid by one party is clearly not paid to be neutral!!!!! Thus, one who agrees to a covenant that requires what Sande pushes, in any form, is giving up the right to have a neutral third party decide, AND giving up the right to not follow (agree to) whatever that party decides. It is a most COERCIVE form of decision-making, least friendly to the party without the financial power.

senecagriggs yahoo wrote:
the widow Mrs. Smith now 85 who has been tithing for the last 40 years. Her tithe money will have to cover the cost of a successful lawsuit.
Her tithe goes to cover the despicable acts of her pastors and leaders.

In many churches, whatever is left after the bare minimal operating budget for rent (or debt), utilities, necessaries and lower level staff ends up in the pocket or benefit of the pastor. Kind of like an entrepreneur. So, if you win against a pastor controlled church, you are taking it out of his pocket, effectively.

Dee, these are NOT mediation clauses. They are ARBITRATION clauses. Mediation requires agreement or there is nothing to restrict action in the public courts. Arbitration usually is binding, so the arbitrator(s) becomes judge and jury, and what they say generally may not be challenged in court. Mediators mediate (seeking middle ground). Arbitrators arbitrator — allegedly seeking a ruling based on the facts and law. I have been both. I prefer mediation. When I was an arbitrator, I worked hard to find justice for the aggrieved party, but with a bit more attention to the party with fewer resources to mount a legal case for their side of the issuess.

If this membership covenant/contract is a legal document and it is intended to prevent the member from appealing to the legal system to resolve a conflict, and it is expected that this covenant/contract will be upheld in a court of law…how is that the church issuing the document has not already/preemptively gone to the legal system against the prospective member in drawing up a legal document for them to sign? Doesn’t the document itself void the supposed spirit of the document?

In many churches, whatever is left after the bare minimal operating budget for rent (or debt), utilities, necessaries and lower level staff ends up in the pocket or benefit of the pastor. Kind of like an entrepreneur. So, if you win against a pastor controlled church, you are taking it out of his pocket, effectively.

At which point the Pastor/Dictator kicks his guilt manipulation into high gear to TITHE! TITHE! TITHE! and the widows start sending in their Social Security checks because THIS PERSECUTION MEANS THE END OF CHRISTIANITY IN AMERICA!!!!!!!!

@ Nick Bulbeck:
I agree but the not by using the Bible as a legal checklist at the expense using wisdom as I would argue they are doing. Many times church leadership is in place because of the doctrine they espouse (which generally comes from where they went to school) and not because they are wise men, which I would say is even more important. Personally I think it is a cop out along with biting off more than they are prepared to handle. I believe that dealing with an abuser can be much more complex than other sins. The track record of the Church in dealing with child abuse is miserable -covering up, paying off and moving the guilty so they become someone else’s problems. Different denominations have proved it again and again. I am sorry, but contrary to what their “biblical” guidelines say if somebody in the church breaks the law – they should be reported to the proper authorities. End of story.

It isn’t just punishing the wrongdoing it is protecting those who are being abused along with future victims, as opposed to the approach of protecting the abuser (and the reputation and money stream for the church).

I believe that these covenants are also based on the Bible being used as a legal checklist but in a very disturbing manner – using the US legal system to force members to not use the US legal system when they feel they have been wronged by the people in authority. You have the mediator/arbiter from a firm which views both sides sin being the cause of conflict, and that God has placed those in authority over us. An example from their web site:

“Question 5: My husband is both verbally and physically abusive. Some friends say I should just forgive and submit. Others say I should get out. What does the Bible say I should do?

Answer: The Bible calls us to love our enemies and do all we can to resolve conflicts in a way that will lead to complete forgiveness and reconciliation. It also teaches that we should submit to those whom God has placed in authority over us”

This sure seems to me that they would have a very hard time not being biased towards those in authority as they “are placed there by God”

Again my main point is they are using the Bible as a legal checklist and that is not what it was intended for – IMHO

Gram3 wrote:
I am breaking in yet another new computer after dropping (I swear I did *not* throw it) my previously new and demon-possessed Windows 8.666 laptop.
Go Mac, you’ll never look back. Rock-solid UNIX based, far simpler interface, and virtually no cussing (if one is as inclined as I am). Let Microsoft die the death it deserves on the trash heap of computer history.

I am thinking if I am right about this then this pastor who has a legal background — and certainly Attny Sande — should know this.

If I am wrong about this I would like someone to tell me (using small words, please) because somebody knows what they are doing and that it is egregious and hypocritical and very much unchristlike and therefore inappropriate discourse among Christian brethren.

I mean, I can see a legal contract for, say, employment at the church as the secretary or janitor or something. But membership?

And it’s that much worse if the church knows it is a legal agreement and the prospective member does not, but thinks it is just a sort of cute formality strictly to be observed and appreciated in house.

@ Mike:
Oh my word! I know of a very similar situation in which an employee who attended the same church as the owner, embezzled a lot of money. when he was caught he immediately called the church leadership. they got involved and told the owner that he had to let them mediate the situation.

Oops hit send too soon. the employee who embezzled was an elder but the owner was not. both the employee and the church leadership thought his role as elder gave him some sort of authority over the owner who was also a long time member of this mega church. the owner told them all to take a hike and left the church

@ formerly anonymous:
the irony is they do not need a contract for employment at the church. they are not bound by any labor laws. most churches do not even have unemployment for the people they throw to the curbs. they do not need a reason to fire you. this is a specially egregious in mega churches where they typically have a large lower staff turnover.

churches have become big businesses that are not required to publicly report as other non-profit must.

As others have said over and over again, the only way for Christians to fight against abuse is not to patronize places like these any more. Starve the beast.

No one needs a membership agreement to worship God in a corporate setting, do they? No one needs the endless supply of books and tapes and DVDs that the machine produces, that will all end up at St. Vinnies or Goodwill sooner or later. Once they are digested, they all end up in the same place. It is all spiritual junk food sold by carnival barkers,imo.

Who needs to sign anything to be part of a church? If one craves acceptance so one can be one of them, and the only way to be one of them is to sign on the dotted line, then maybe one needs to take a long hard look at one’s self.

If we can’t find what we need by simply being with other Christ followers then what is wrong with us?

@ Arce:
would they have to actually use the word ‘arbitrate’ in these agreements and churches?

No. There are other terms that, if defined elsewhere in a public document by the church, clearly imply binding arbitration. “Christian conciliation” with the reference to its definition by a particular organization would likely be sufficient. BTW, the definition is very much one that implies binding arbitration by a member of that organization acting as the “conciliator” doing things that are effectively what an arbitrator does.

Clearly imply to whom? The poor sucker who has no idea and just happens not to be a lawyer? They don’t let the medical profession get away with that. Informed consent means informed, and that means that the patient has to understand what he has been told.

When it comes to this behavior the phrase “lying sack of ****” comes to mind.

I think there is a fine line to walk between “legally” protective agreements and abusive coercion. Obviously in cases like the one detailed here it is abusive towards and dismissive of someone who has a real grievance. But, in other cases it may very well be a wise move to create a system by which churches can be protected.

To explain….

While it is true that scripture does not show any legally binding “covenants” being signed by churches…it is a mistake to therefore argue that all covenant agreements are “wrong”. I am not going to be as clear an articulate as some are….but….There are many things that are not instructed explicitly to do or not do in scripture. We have a responsibility to evaluate our particular situations and establish protocols and operational paradigms that are wisely responsive to the specifics of the current realities.

Obviously, these decisions cannot run counter to clear Biblical statements. Meaning, a Covenant that protects abusive leadership and allows it to continue is CLEARLY wrong. But the reality of our era in some regards can cause one to make a case why some sort of legally protective language is important.

As we are all aware we are a very litigious society. As the non-denominational church world has grown over the last 30 years we now have a large number of individual churches that are not “protected” by the larger umbrella of established denominations that help protect and mitigate potential problems, such as lawsuits. One person with a grievance(legitimate or otherwise) can destroy a local church by drawing them into a lawsuit. For every MH that pays their pastors high 6 figures, there are 100’s of churches who have little financial liquidity and a lawsuit, regardless of its merits, could cause a church to lose things like their buildings.

Growing up in ministry, serving in ministry, and being involved in a number of different churches and para-church ministries in my life I have been blessed to never be apart of a ministry where something like abuse(sexual or otherwise) has occurred. But I have seen about a dozen cases of disgruntled people go after the churches assets….

About 14 years ago our church was switching denominations(99% vote agreement to do so). There was an older gentleman who had left the church over a decade earlier who decided to cause problems….

A bit of background….This guy was one of the wealthiest people in town and had been a fixture at the church for decades. In the early 80’s my father was hired and there immediately became “problems”….1- Demanded that we stop singing Amazing Grace because “I am not a wretch and don’t need to hear that” 2- Demanded that we stop preaching about miracles in the bible because, “They are ridiculous 3. And the topper was when he offered to donate a large chunk of money to build a church library ONLY if we dedicate it to him. My father politely declined…..Which was the last straw for this guy because he thought his money should have bought him influence…..

When he found out that my “evil” dad was “leading” the church away from the denomination he threatened to start a lawsuit against the church and my father specifically. It was only dropped because they offered to give him back any money he had given over 30 years….which turned out to be like 4k….he did not want that publicly known(imo)and so he disappeared. But briefly it looked like this could be a huge problem.

Now I have never been in a church that has people sign membership covenants(nor do I think I as a pastor would ever implement one), but I understand in many situations for many church leaders stories like I shared are worrisome and protecting the local church from these kinds of destructive attacks make sense.

Again, in the case of abuse I agree that the covenant is clearly invalidated. But, regardless of whatever document you may have signed, correct me if I am wrong, if someone breaks the law I am fairly confident that such an agreement won’t absolve the guilty party of legal wrong doing. At the end of the day, no matter what I “sign” with someone, or, some church, doesn’t mean they can shoot me in the leg and I am breaking the law for reporting it.

I have received and read the constitution and by laws of ________ Church.
Although I may or may not completely understand or agree with the doctrinal statement, I will pledge myself to not knowingly teach or promote anything contrary to the doctrinal statement.
I also pledge myself in covenant relation to the other members of the church to abide by the constitution and by-laws.

@ Adam Borsay:
Adam, why would an assembly of believers need to be legally protected? it seems to me that what needs to be protected is the institutional package which really has not much to do with the ekklesia.

the institution already has tax protection. it has protection from people knowing how much it takes in and who is paid what. paid ministers also get a tax benefit not even military veterans get.

I would say the institutional church has many legal protections. it might be hard to see this from an outsiders point of view if you grew up around paid ministry.

Just to be safe you might want to send a letter certified mail officially dissolving your membership. I cannot do a link on my phone but there is a post on TWW about this very thing and how to do it. The commenter here who goes by Arce is the go to guy on this issue.

Is there malpractice insurance for churches and/or religious professionals? The seminars from my former malpractice carrier used to furnish all sorts of statistics about people getting getting sued for no valid medical reason whatever. And you know what they said was the most frequent cause of this? The doctor had been mean to some nurse and she set him, and/or the clerk in the doctor’s office had been mean to the patient and the patient wanted revenge for being treated that way. Nobody ought to be mean to anybody, but the definition of medical malpractice does not include that.

So I am thinking that believers or not, churches or not, pastors or not, anybody can get sued, sometimes for little more than bad manners. There would need to be some sort of protection; contracts or insurance or the J. Frank Norris method or something. Of course, if the buildings were owned not by the local church but rather by the denomination, and if the denom were large and powerful, a frivolous lawsuit would cost the plaintiff proportionately so much that might dissuade some frivolous suits.

I did not say that people should lose the right to access the courts. I did not say that there are no valid reasons to seek relief that way. And certainly crime belongs in court, not in the pastor’s study. But there is the other side of the coin also.

correct me if I am wrong, if someone breaks the law I am fairly confident that such an agreement won’t absolve the guilty party of legal wrong doing

Read carefully what I wrote. The above situation at Vineyard of Ohio is not considered “breaking the law.” People are free to have affairs in this country. However, it is patently obvious that the pastor committed a civil violation and the law allows for a civil lawsuit to press for damages. That woman should have her mental health expenses covered by that allegedly negligent church.

You have been following the SGM situation. Take a look at the Nate Morales situation. He did break the law. He is going to jail, probably for he rest of his life. However, damages were not awarded to the families of those who were abused. They must sue in civil court for that to occur.

The Catholic church has had to deal with this over time and it is helpful to see what has happened in that regard. Please do not think I am picking on the RCC. The evangelical world is even worse according to Boz Tchividjian but the RCC has been at this at lot longer.

Priests did break the law. Some of them have been sent to jail. Others have not due to statute of limitations which are now being changed in just about every state. People have brought lawsuits against the Catholic church in civil court and have won large judgments against the church. Some of these incidents happened decades ago. Just because the situation is wrong doesn’t mean it is recognized by the law.Therefore, criminal prosecution does not necessarily mean restitution for the injured.

It was only dropped because they offered to give him back any money he had given over 30 years….which turned out to be like 4k….he did not want that publicly known(imo)and so he disappeared. But briefly it looked like this could be a huge problem.

So, when push came to shove, that church got itself out of the situation without a lawsuit. More churches should consider such resolutions but they do not. 4K saved them a boatload of money.

…it is a mistake to therefore argue that all covenant agreements are “wrong”.

I didn’t say the agreements were wrong. I said that I wouldn’t sign one because I do not wish to legally bind myself to a church.

What is wrong is when a church has people sign these documents and do not level with them that they are signing a legal agreement. That is deceptive and unworthy of any church. God gave us the rules of the game in the Bible. Follow me and be saved is one of them. However, churches rarely if ever say, “join us and be aware that we can do bad things and you can’t sue us.”

Frankly, there are many things you can do and not be in violation of Scripture. That does not mean it is necessarily wise or good.

No one needs the endless supply of books and tapes and DVDs that the machine produces, that will all end up at St. Vinnies or Goodwill sooner or later. Once they are digested, they all end up in the same place.

And it’s that much worse if the church knows it is a legal agreement and the prospective member does not, but thinks it is just a sort of cute formality strictly to be observed and appreciated in house.

The thought that comes to mind for me is this: Adding an arbitration clause to a church membership covenant is like adding a divorce clause to a wedding vow.

Think hard about going into this relationship, since your “partner” is already planning for the worst.

“Do you, ________, promise to have and to hold, in sickness and in health, until the divorce proceedings begin, then it all goes to the chump standing next to you no matter how wretched he behaved or how unfaithful he was to you?”

I once worked for a company that coerced all of its employees to “voluntarily” sign an arbitration clause or face termination. This is even slimier.

So how would these passages (in context) be applied to the signing of a church covenant today? Or could they be applied to that situation? I would love to hear some opinions. Is signing a membership covenant a sort of oath?

33 “Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made.’ 34 But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; 35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36 And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37 All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.[g] Matthew 5

12 Above all, my brothers and sisters, do not swear—not by heaven or by earth or by anything else. All you need to say is a simple “Yes” or “No.” Otherwise you will be condemned. James 5

Like a prenuptial agreement. Whatever they agree to. That is a good point.

I am thinking, did God have a prenup with Israel? There was a lot of if/then being said as well as if but if not. If you will be my people then I will be your god. And if you do what I tell you then all these good things will happen, but if not then all these bad things will happen. And at one point he did use the term divorce in relation to the nation.

That does not give pastors the option to do that with people, of course. I was just wondering.

Arce wrote:
clearly imply binding arbitration.
Clearly imply to whom? The poor sucker who has no idea and just happens not to be a lawyer? They don’t let the medical profession get away with that. Informed consent means informed, and that means that the patient has to understand what he has been told.
When it comes to this behavior the phrase “lying sack of ****” comes to mind.

There is a federal law that supports binding arbitration, and the language in almost all credit account paperwork indicates an agreement to binding arbitration if one signs the agreement or uses the account. It is assumed that one who does that knows what one is doing or has done!!!!! That is what the courts have ruled. Of course, courts on occasion do rule that an arbitration clause is abusive, but that is rare.

I would suggest that you carefully read whatever documents the church has that are mentioned or implied by what you signed. If they are like those in most churches, I would suggest you consider resigning from membership, posthaste.

There’s nothing controversial about a mediation or arbitration clause in a contract (and you’re right, D & D, these are contracts); I recommend them to the business students I teach as an effective manner of resolving legal disputes with a minimum of resources and troubles. When I was in practice, over 90% of the cases in which I was involved were handled without resort to trial, and most without even going through the trouble of serving a summons and complaint. I think med or arb is a better path and arguably more biblical method for religious nonprofits as well.

That said, the system described in this article disturbs me, because I can imagine the system they’ve established is conducive to abuse and bias in favor of pastor over parishoner. What in the world are the “Rules of Procedure for Christian Conciliation of the Institute for Christian Conciliation, a division of Peacemaker® Ministries”? Is this something that Jane Pewsitter can really expect a fair shake in, or a kangaroo court? I can well imagine Peacemaker® Ministries has a profit motive, and the bulk of the profits almost certainly would not come from laity clamoring for a Christian mediation service, but from churches and larger religious institutions seeking to manage legal risk. I can well imagine Peacemaker® Ministries marketing their services to large churches and denominations, and I can imagine if the results were anything but favorable thereto, the profits would tend to wane.

In fact, it’s almost impossible to imagine such a system being fair, unless both parties to a lawsuit between parishoner and church had their fair say in who would be a mediator or arbitrator, and that that person truly was neutral.

Under the Federal and Uniform Arbitration Acts, people have a right to have any arbitration award or decision set aside by a proper court on a finding of bias or abuse of discretion, so people need to know that unless the arbitrator is playing it fairly, they still have some recourse, even if they voluntarily agreed to binding arb. The problem is the lack of knowledge of these matters, and the way in which going through such a process has the tendency to make people fatalistic and wear them down, both financially and emotionally. The right to seek redress from a court under the UAA might be a moot point to one who’s been abused in a church, then abused a second time by a biased “Christian” arbitration process.

Just to be safe you might want to send a letter certified mail officially dissolving your membership. I cannot do a link on my phone but there is a post on TWW about this very thing and how to do it. The commenter here who goes by Arce is the go to guy on this issue.

Yes, send a letter certified mail, but also do the following –

1) Send the letter with a return receipt so the post office confirms the letter was delivered with signature of the recipient.

2) Enclose with the original letter, a copy of the letter and a self addressed postage paid return envelope.

3) Request the church, probably the secretary, sign and date the copy of the letter and return the letter to you in the postage paid envelope.

These additional steps should provide the necessary proof that you dissolved your membership should the need ever arise. If the church doesn’t return to you a signed and dated copy of the letter, go to the church office and resolve the issue ASAP.

What on the face of the earth do people think they will gain from “church” to make it worth the risk of membership covenants/contracts? I can understand if the only way you can get a job is to work for some group which requires this, and you have hungry kids at home, and you have no transportable skills, and, and. Then you have to do what you have to do. But church? For what? It is a bad deal. Why cut a bad deal if there is any way around it?

People, theology can be read in a book, you don’t need a preacher. Good works happen outside the church doors, just do it. Causes accept your donation without asking if you are truly saved. Public school will educate your children, and churches are not health care providers. The really huge employers are not churches. All you have to do is keep your money in your wallet/purse and your car out of their parking lot and if times get tough enough for the churches they will get a new revelation from God (there is precedent for this) and behold changes will be made.

And if you just can’t live without church, start one in your living room–after checking your insurance and zoning of course. But don’t be foolish.

Nancy, In my experience…..in the beginning people are convinced they gain a family, a church family. what they think is a safe social circle. in my experience this is exactly how mega churches market themselves without people realizing it. they work hard to get people into a group where they are immediately accepted, love bombed. it becomes very hard to leave the group. and all is usually well until there is some sort of disagreement.

for the most part, church relationships are an illusion. they are more institutional than they are personal.

Nancy, In my experience…..in the beginning people are convinced they gain a family, a church family. what they think is a safe social circle. in my experience this is exactly how mega churches market themselves without people realizing it. they work hard to get people into a group where they are immediately accepted, love bombed. it becomes very hard to leave the group. and all is usually well until there is some sort of disagreement.

Hi! Your headline is a bit misleading. This case is not proof of anything but fear mongering. To be clear, you are not fear mongering. The abusive churches holding membership contracts as civilly enforceable documents are. Let me explain.

I’d be surprised for any trial court to challenge well established and entrenched case law firmly based on the First Amendment (see cite below). Courts are VERY reluctant to try ecclesiastical cases which hinge on doctrinal issues apart from any criminal or civil wrongs; and a membership compact is certainly a doctrinal issue. In addition, membership compacts, covenants, agreements, et. al, are not civilly enforceable because they are not contracts. Don’t let the official sounding language fool you.

The Promise Keepers case cited by Peacemakers and referenced above is not an ecclesiastical case or a church contract. That is a business contract, where an actual bargained for exchange was mutually assented to. In such contracts there certainly can be a legally enforceable “conciliation clause” because the contract itself is civilly enforceable. In a membership covenant, there is no over-arching contract to enforce and therefore analyze the illuminations within.

The Vineyard complaint cited above is not a dispute over ecclesiastical matters and the so called defense by the church that there was an implied conciliation clause was looked on with contempt by both the trial court and the appellate court because the membership agreement is not a contract. This is true even if there was an explicit clause signed by the plaintiff. Why? Because no mediation clause can be upheld if there is no contract to support the clause and again, a church membership is not a legally enforceable contract no matter how much a church bleets it is. To those who know contract law, please answer me this, in a church covenant or membership agreement what is the consideration? The church will certainly throw any and all means (legal or not) to stymie the complaint but in the end it will be to no avail. They will ultimately pay damages if the plaintiff can withstand the time and money.

In a church or ecclesiastical context, what can be enforced through a mediation clause? Labor disputes, pastor’s salary, property disputes and the like. In other words, business relationships governed by actual contracts, regulatory laws or statutes, not given to ecclesiastical jurisdiction or authority. [See: Presbyterian Church v. Hull Church 393 U.S. 440 (1969) for more info.]

Bottom Line: A church covenant with an explicit “conciliation clause” is not legally enforceable or legally binding because it is not a contract (unlike Encore Productions, Inc. v. Promise Keepers cited above). In addition, a membership covenant can only be enforced by the proper authorities in the proper jurisdiction and the state ain’t it.

The thing is, I had already decided to leave the church after Christmas. (As I said, talk about timing . . . ) I was hoping to do it quietly. But if I don’t sign the thing and they get after me about it, perhaps there’ll be a kerfuffle after al. Sigh.